情境因素对学生测试影响的全球视角

IF 2.7 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Therese N. Hopfenbeck
{"title":"情境因素对学生测试影响的全球视角","authors":"Therese N. Hopfenbeck","doi":"10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current regular issue contains several articles specifically looking into the testing situation for students across the globe, with empirical studies from New Zealand, Spain, Israel, and England. While some of the articles look at students ́ specific situation and how they are accommodated to do their best in their testing situation, other articles look at how the different stakes of a test influence students’ effort and motivation. In the first article in this issue, Zhao et al. (2022) examines students’ conceptions of tests and test-taking motivation using an experimental design including a sample of 497 students from senior secondary education in New Zealand. Students were assigned to one of three different test conditions (none, country or self) and responded to self-reports about their motivation and anxiety depending upon the different conditions. It might not come as a surprise that students ́ efforts were notably lower when the country was at stake versus the self-at-stake conditions. The question raised by the authors is whether New Zealand’s rankings in international large-scale assessments are valid. These discussions are not new, and more empirical studies are needed to investigate how students’ motivation might vary across the globe, and under different conditions, particularly as similar empirical studies in Scandinavia have demonstrated high effort from students during international tests (Eklöf & Hopfenbeck, 2019; Hopfenbeck & Kjærnsli, 2016). The second article by De La Fuente Fernández and Pascual (2022) investigates the current influence of university entrance exams on the teaching of chemistry in upper secondary education in Spain. A total of 447 chemistry teachers responded to a survey, demonstrating that the content taught in schools is closer to what is required to pass the university entrance exam, than to what the teachers themselves believed was important for students to learn. In other words, a clear washback effect of these admission tests was found. In addition, it found significant differences between regions with respect to curriculum taught, findings which are discussed in relation to future directions and possibilities. Saka et al. (2022) has assessed differential prediction and differential validity in higher education admission policy for students who have a variety of disabilities. More specifically, they investigated students who were either granted or denied test accommodations on the Israeli Psychometric Entrance Test (PET). The sample comprised 124,501 records of first year students from six universities and more than 2000 academic departments. The results demonstrated that the accommodation policy was generally fair towards students with disabilities, but the authors also found that the failure of applicants to provide adequate documentation of their disability could result in technical rejection, which could in turn lead to the under-prediction of their academic performance. A similar approach was taken by Rodeiro & Macinska (2022) in their investigation of the claim that students with test accommodations are given an unfair advantage rather ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2022, VOL. 29, NO. 4, 395–396 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242","PeriodicalId":51515,"journal":{"name":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","volume":"25 1","pages":"395 - 396"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Global perspectives on the impact of situational factors on student testing\",\"authors\":\"Therese N. Hopfenbeck\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The current regular issue contains several articles specifically looking into the testing situation for students across the globe, with empirical studies from New Zealand, Spain, Israel, and England. While some of the articles look at students ́ specific situation and how they are accommodated to do their best in their testing situation, other articles look at how the different stakes of a test influence students’ effort and motivation. In the first article in this issue, Zhao et al. (2022) examines students’ conceptions of tests and test-taking motivation using an experimental design including a sample of 497 students from senior secondary education in New Zealand. Students were assigned to one of three different test conditions (none, country or self) and responded to self-reports about their motivation and anxiety depending upon the different conditions. It might not come as a surprise that students ́ efforts were notably lower when the country was at stake versus the self-at-stake conditions. The question raised by the authors is whether New Zealand’s rankings in international large-scale assessments are valid. These discussions are not new, and more empirical studies are needed to investigate how students’ motivation might vary across the globe, and under different conditions, particularly as similar empirical studies in Scandinavia have demonstrated high effort from students during international tests (Eklöf & Hopfenbeck, 2019; Hopfenbeck & Kjærnsli, 2016). The second article by De La Fuente Fernández and Pascual (2022) investigates the current influence of university entrance exams on the teaching of chemistry in upper secondary education in Spain. A total of 447 chemistry teachers responded to a survey, demonstrating that the content taught in schools is closer to what is required to pass the university entrance exam, than to what the teachers themselves believed was important for students to learn. In other words, a clear washback effect of these admission tests was found. In addition, it found significant differences between regions with respect to curriculum taught, findings which are discussed in relation to future directions and possibilities. Saka et al. (2022) has assessed differential prediction and differential validity in higher education admission policy for students who have a variety of disabilities. More specifically, they investigated students who were either granted or denied test accommodations on the Israeli Psychometric Entrance Test (PET). The sample comprised 124,501 records of first year students from six universities and more than 2000 academic departments. The results demonstrated that the accommodation policy was generally fair towards students with disabilities, but the authors also found that the failure of applicants to provide adequate documentation of their disability could result in technical rejection, which could in turn lead to the under-prediction of their academic performance. A similar approach was taken by Rodeiro & Macinska (2022) in their investigation of the claim that students with test accommodations are given an unfair advantage rather ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2022, VOL. 29, NO. 4, 395–396 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242\",\"PeriodicalId\":51515,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"395 - 396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目前的定期刊物包含了几篇文章,专门研究了全球学生的考试情况,其中包括来自新西兰、西班牙、以色列和英国的实证研究。虽然一些文章着眼于学生的具体情况,以及如何适应他们在考试中做到最好,但其他文章着眼于考试的不同利害关系如何影响学生的努力和动机。在本期的第一篇文章中,Zhao et al.(2022)采用了一项实验设计,包括新西兰高中497名学生的样本,研究了学生对考试的概念和考试动机。学生们被分配到三种不同的测试条件(无,国家或自我)中的一种,并根据不同的条件对他们的动机和焦虑的自我报告做出反应。当国家处于危急状态时,学生们的努力程度明显低于自我处于危急状态时,这可能并不令人惊讶。作者提出的问题是,新西兰在国际大规模评估中的排名是否有效。这些讨论并不新鲜,需要更多的实证研究来调查学生的动机在全球范围内以及不同条件下的差异,特别是斯堪的纳维亚半岛的类似实证研究表明,学生在国际测试期间付出了很高的努力(Eklöf & Hopfenbeck, 2019;Hopfenbeck & k ærnsli, 2016)。De La Fuente Fernández和Pascual(2022)的第二篇文章调查了目前高考对西班牙高中化学教学的影响。一项共有447名化学教师参与的调查显示,学校教授的内容更接近于通过高考所需的内容,而不是教师自己认为对学生来说重要的内容。换句话说,发现了这些入学测试的明显反拨效应。此外,报告还发现各地区在所教授的课程方面存在重大差异,并就未来的方向和可能性对这些发现进行了讨论。Saka等人(2022)评估了高等教育录取政策对各种残疾学生的差异预测和差异效度。更具体地说,他们调查了在以色列心理测量入学考试(PET)中获得或拒绝考试住宿的学生。样本包括来自6所大学和2000多个院系的124,501名一年级学生的记录。结果表明,住宿政策对残疾学生总体上是公平的,但作者也发现,申请人未能提供足够的残疾证明文件可能导致技术拒绝,这反过来可能导致对其学业成绩的低估。Rodeiro和Macinska(2022)在他们的调查中也采用了类似的方法,他们认为有考试便利的学生被给予了不公平的优势,而不是教育评估:原则,政策和实践2022,VOL. 29, NO。4,395 - 396 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Global perspectives on the impact of situational factors on student testing
The current regular issue contains several articles specifically looking into the testing situation for students across the globe, with empirical studies from New Zealand, Spain, Israel, and England. While some of the articles look at students ́ specific situation and how they are accommodated to do their best in their testing situation, other articles look at how the different stakes of a test influence students’ effort and motivation. In the first article in this issue, Zhao et al. (2022) examines students’ conceptions of tests and test-taking motivation using an experimental design including a sample of 497 students from senior secondary education in New Zealand. Students were assigned to one of three different test conditions (none, country or self) and responded to self-reports about their motivation and anxiety depending upon the different conditions. It might not come as a surprise that students ́ efforts were notably lower when the country was at stake versus the self-at-stake conditions. The question raised by the authors is whether New Zealand’s rankings in international large-scale assessments are valid. These discussions are not new, and more empirical studies are needed to investigate how students’ motivation might vary across the globe, and under different conditions, particularly as similar empirical studies in Scandinavia have demonstrated high effort from students during international tests (Eklöf & Hopfenbeck, 2019; Hopfenbeck & Kjærnsli, 2016). The second article by De La Fuente Fernández and Pascual (2022) investigates the current influence of university entrance exams on the teaching of chemistry in upper secondary education in Spain. A total of 447 chemistry teachers responded to a survey, demonstrating that the content taught in schools is closer to what is required to pass the university entrance exam, than to what the teachers themselves believed was important for students to learn. In other words, a clear washback effect of these admission tests was found. In addition, it found significant differences between regions with respect to curriculum taught, findings which are discussed in relation to future directions and possibilities. Saka et al. (2022) has assessed differential prediction and differential validity in higher education admission policy for students who have a variety of disabilities. More specifically, they investigated students who were either granted or denied test accommodations on the Israeli Psychometric Entrance Test (PET). The sample comprised 124,501 records of first year students from six universities and more than 2000 academic departments. The results demonstrated that the accommodation policy was generally fair towards students with disabilities, but the authors also found that the failure of applicants to provide adequate documentation of their disability could result in technical rejection, which could in turn lead to the under-prediction of their academic performance. A similar approach was taken by Rodeiro & Macinska (2022) in their investigation of the claim that students with test accommodations are given an unfair advantage rather ASSESSMENT IN EDUCATION: PRINCIPLES, POLICY & PRACTICE 2022, VOL. 29, NO. 4, 395–396 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2022.2130242
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice
Assessment in Education-Principles Policy & Practice EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Recent decades have witnessed significant developments in the field of educational assessment. New approaches to the assessment of student achievement have been complemented by the increasing prominence of educational assessment as a policy issue. In particular, there has been a growth of interest in modes of assessment that promote, as well as measure, standards and quality. These have profound implications for individual learners, institutions and the educational system itself. Assessment in Education provides a focus for scholarly output in the field of assessment. The journal is explicitly international in focus and encourages contributions from a wide range of assessment systems and cultures. The journal''s intention is to explore both commonalities and differences in policy and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信